Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Despite annotations already indicating readOnly and non-destructive behavior, the description adds valuable context: it only formats local text, never contacts anyone, and never creates a receipt. This goes beyond the annotations by clarifying side effects and the scope of the tool's actions.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences with no wasted words. The use case is front-loaded, followed by clear constraints. It is concise yet information-dense.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers the core purpose, behavioral constraints, and usage context. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to call it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with the 'handle' parameter fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: to create a copyable prompt for an opted-in second agent. It uses a specific verb ('formats') and resource ('local text'), and explicitly contrasts with related actions ('never contacts anyone or creates a receipt'), distinguishing it from siblings like sup_receipt.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives an explicit when-to-use condition ('when the user wants a copyable prompt for an opted-in second agent'). It also implies when not to use it by stating it never contacts anyone or creates a receipt, but it does not name specific alternative tools, so it falls short of full guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.